Attached to my email, you will find a two-line file entitled "robots.txt". The 4-year-old who designed your website should copy it into your top-level web directory. This file is essentially an instruction to Google's web spider to direct people to your competitors rather then you.
My client Google believes in respecting these wishes. We have happily de-listed your site.
On a related note, I know some excellent bankruptcy attorneys in your country. In a couple months' time when you come to need one, I will be happy to make a recommendation.
Please post your full, real name, home, school/work, and cell phone numbers, unaltered email addresses, home and school/work address, job title, vehicle descriptions and license plate numbers, and a link to a recent photograph of yourself.
Or, admit that privacy has its benefits after all.
I guess we disagree on the fundamentals then, I don't believe at all that patent filings would drop "to zero". They would certainly fall quite a bit. This would be a good thing, as the ones still filed would be the ones the patent system is genuinely intended to protect, not the ones that misuse it.
Patent lawyers would also become much more diligent-the current advice to "file away, why not!" would become shoddy legal advice, and subject to malpractice claims. They would search much harder for prior art, as well as advising clients to stay well within the clear scope of clearly valid patents, rather then extending their reach as far as they might be able to get away with, or going only after smaller entities unable to put up a fight.
In the meantime, victims of unfair patents would have an excellent incentive to fight them, rather than roll over and pay, and attorneys would have an incentive to take a case against a clearly unfair patent (or use of one) from a smaller entity who normally would be bankrupted by the legal fees. Currently, if you fight a bad patent, even if you win, you lose-the court costs of doing so are prohibitive for anyone but the largest entities.
As to the "value in our economy"? Bad patents have -negative- value to the economy, by stifling innovation rather than encouraging it. It is very clear from the wording in the Constitution ("to promote Science and the useful Arts") that this was never the intent of the patent system. This system wouldn't punish the "innocent", the current system does that. This system would place the costs of questionable patents and overreaches squarely where it belongs-on those who file and abuse them, not on the genuine innovators who are their victims.
As to being "unable to predict how a court is going to rule"? Actually, if the patent is clearly valid, it can be pretty clearly predicted that a court will uphold it. If it is -genuinely- impossible to predict how the patent would shake out in court, then it is questionable, and either shouldn't be filed, or if it is, the person -doing- the filing should bear risk if it is indeed invalid!
This would also have the side effect of curtailing the rise of companies which produce nothing but red tape, so-called "patent holding companies". Such a venture would be immensely risky under that system, and again, this would be a good thing.
Having a patent granted provides little assurance that the patent is valid. Patent examiners are time-pressured production line workers; quality control suffers sometimes. Patents are commonly invalidated during litigation. Patent Hawk has personally invalidated well over a dozen patents through prior art search.
From THESE SAME PEOPLE'S response to the editorial:
"Too many patents are issued for "innovations" that are obvious, vague or already in wide use." - On what authority or statistical basis? This ignorant assertion is hoary, with no basis other than anecdotal evidence of patents occasionally being found invalid.
"On what authority"? On their OWN authority! Patents cannot be both "commonly" and "occasionally" invalidated, depending which one's convenient for them at the time!
Despite you (sic) baseless theory backed by no recearch, (sic) there is real-world data out there showing that music prices are NOT ELASTIC ENOUGH to justify lowering prices.
"Backed by no research"? I challenge you to find me -any- study on price elasticity that does not back my claim-luxury items are the most price-elastic commodity. It's been researched exhaustively, and that is the overwhelming (and relatively unsurprising) conclusion.
Now, as to your claims that my ideas have been tried-those are baseless. They never have been tried. I'll take your word for it that some new-release CD has been released at $5 (I've never seen it, the only CD's I've seen at that price point are either used or old, obscure bands that 3 people might like), but as far as I've seen, CD's hover between $15 and $20, and have -never- deviated from that. And even if a bit of tinkering's been done, that shows nothing that a revolutionary change would not work-the two do not equate. My ideas have never -been- tried. Debate them if you'd like, but drop the pretense that they've been tried and failed, or put up some evidence that they have.
Far from wild price experimentation, the record labels were convicted of illegal price fixing. That is proven fact, public record. Now offer up something of substance, or don't be so quick to sling "baseless" around.
Besides, the near-automatic granting of injunctions can lead to the absurd result of a company being forced to pay royalties to license patents later found to be invalid.
Easy enough to solve-require the holder of any patent later found invalid, or who charges licensing fees for something later ruled not to come under the scope of the patent, to pay back triple such fees and/or court awards they won from the invalid patent or improper use of it. You'll see a lot more caution in patent filings, and a lot more willingness to back down on questionable or obviously invalid stretches.
Your second point is flat wrong, and your first is able to be solved. Let's address them:
Luxury items, such as entertainment, have the -most- elastic demand curves. When the price of gas went up, you didn't see a massive reduction in demand, because so many individuals and businesses are dependent on it. Raise the price of food, and you won't see demand go down significantly, lower it, and it won't go up by a huge amount. On the other hand, cut the price of a music download in half (or offer a flat-rate service), and you will see a huge increase in demand. Raise it, and you will see a large number of people walk away entirely, go to P2P, or simply cut back.
As to the costs of making and marketing an album, yes, they are currently high for massive labels. However, it is becoming cheaper and easier to make and refine music, as general-purpose PC's become able to do so, and that will likely continue. Also, a market served by flat-rate download services would find it far less necessary to have "big-name" bands created, promoted, and advertised, and a large number of "niche" bands, paid basically solely on "commission" based on their popularity, could fill the demand just as nicely without any marketing besides the Long Tail on the website. Given the Long Tail effect, even a single track sold/downloaded is profitable, at any price, and given the opportunity for anyone to make a bit of money at it, even "hobby" bands would be likely to put their stuff up.
Actually, you'd only be right if they were selling a scarce product. As they are not, it doesn't apply at all.
If you've got ten widgets to sell, and you paid $.10 per widget, plus $5.00 to market them, you must sell each one for at least $.61 in order to make a profit. On the other hand, if you have an unlimited number of widgets (or can make an unlimited number of copies of them), you make a profit whether you sell 10 at $.61, 61 at $.10, or 601 at $.01. This is exactly -why- allofmp3.com is able to turn a profit (and apparently bandwidth is affordable at these prices), and the labels would most certainly turn huge profits from the massive frenzy of downloading which would occur from a similar reduction in their own prices. Also, the lower their prices get, the less likely people will be to turn to free alternatives, or allofmp3.
The problem, however, is exactly as you've illustrated-a lot of MBA's who are clueless, and think that in the age of free-flowing, easily obtainable, easily copied information, that they are selling a widget. In reality, the information -itself- is nearly valueless, due to the fact that it is so easily copied. Artificially inflating its value might work for a little while, but in the end, legislation is an expensive thing to buy-both in terms of the monetary cost and the cost of consumer goodwill. No one likes to hear about a kid or a grandma getting sued, whether they were really doing what they're accused of or not. No one likes DRM, regardless of whether or not they're willing to put up with it.
What they should be looking to sell is a SERVICE. Real has realized this, and is making a good deal of money. Allofmp3 has realized this, and is making a ton of money. (And they're making it legally in their country-why is it that some of the people I see castigating allofmp3 are the same ones who defended Yahoo's actions in China as "just acting in accordance with local law"?) Sell an "all-you-can-eat" download service for, say, $10 a month, with help in finding what you might like based on previous choices, and you'll see millions of people sign up. 10 million sign up? Look at that, you just made $100 million-free money, aside from nominal bandwidth costs. And compared to producing, packaging, and shipping a physical product, bandwidth is extremely cheap, and download costs should reflect this.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't hold out a whole lot of hope that we'll see such a thing. Or more appropriately, that we'll see it from the current crop of information-as-widget companies. But dinosaurs die out, and currently, they actually seem to die off pretty quickly. Don't be one of them.
Yes, because in addition to the neat new lens, the package also includes a guy who'll come by and hold a gun to your head, forcing you to sharpen the image.
Wouldn't worry too much about that-in a lot of cases, different people will be calling them to account for different things. The AG of Texas is calling them to account for violations of Texas criminal law. That's his job, he's a prosecutor. Anyone personally impacted by this (or any business whose security was compromised, for instance) can also sue Sony individually, or if someone launches it, in a class-action suit. The Attorneys General of other states also might pick up on this action and decide they want a piece as well-and remember, attorneys general are elected officials! If you were personally infected by the rootkit, write to your state AG and file a formal complaint. If you weren't, I'd still advise sending them a general letter that you think this is a filthy practice and you expect to see them help send a very, very clear message to Sony that it is unacceptable.
They may have (actually likely have) also broken federal laws, but that's up to the AG of the United States to prosecute, and the federal government tends to be relatively pro-corporate. Might not be much that happens there.
As for Sony's copyright infringement (oh, the irony!) that would be up to the copyright holders of the GPL code in question to sue over. I sure hope they do, I hope Sony winds up bankrupt over this garbage. With many states having statutory damages (yep, same type as in copyright law, that the labels just love to scare consumers with) for hacking/computer trespass, the numbers just might get big enough to do it.
That's an interesting take on that...in the end, isn't "ownership" of property (at least, beyond "I'm bigger and meaner then you and will attack you if you try and take it away") a function of the government as well? What good will "owning" property really do you, if anyone who takes it away won't be arrested and thrown in jail?
This wasn't a "slip up"-a bug in software is a slip up. This was a deliberate, calculated effort by Sony to secretly take malicious action against their legitimate customers. In the name of -preventing- "piracy"? How many users will now take the downloading option next time, rather then risking inserting a CD with -any- form of "DRM" into their drive?
When they did not heed my warning shots, I usually got them taken down on academic charges (its a bitch when you get kicked out of school for sharing the latest Britney Spear's album).
I imagine you're trolling, because 1: Anyone who works around a university would hopefully know how to spell "copyrighted", and 2: If anyone had gotten kicked out of school for P2P usage, I imagine it might've made bigger news. Still, presuming you're not-that's not a "bitch", it would be wrong on your part to be making excessive trouble over it and wrong on the school's part for letting you.
Now, which university was this you work(ed) for, and who got kicked out? There must be linkable information somewhere, let's have it.
Just out of curiosity...what might one have to be smoking in order to moderate this "offtopic"? I really am curious. If you're the moderator who did this, please do post, even anonymously if you insist on leaving the moderation in place, and let us know what in the fuck you were thinking.
Now, on the other hand, THIS post is offtopic. Feel free to nail it, I got karma, watch me not care.
Nah, just put him riiiiiiight in front of Alderaan...
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 19 seconds since you hit 'reply'.
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or are typing with both hands. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
Well, it -seems- like splitting hairs, but "IP" (meaning "intellectual property") is a misuse of language. Even the Constitution, which establishes copyrights and patents, makes clear that they're not property, they're government restrictions. If we look at them as totally separate from real property, we can easily see the difference-land is naturally scarce, ideas are not. Property rights are necessitated by land's natural scarcity, but copyright and patent are an attempt to impose artificial scarcity where no natural scarcity exists, so that an -approximation- of property rights can be imposed upon the approximation of scarcity! There's no equating the two.
Besides that, the term "IP" lumps together many disparate concepts. Copyrights are not like trademarks, and neither one is like patents. To preserve clarity, each should be discussed individually, and called its proper name. When details are important, it's not "splitting hairs" to bring them up.
And I'm sure it would very nicely protect Ford's "upgrade revenue stream" if only they were allowed to make parts for their cars, and they stopped doing so after a few years. That doesn't mean we should implement that situation and allow them to do so. So why should we do it for Nintendo? If they want to protect "upgrade revenue", let 'em come out with a product that's worth upgrading to, and a Zelda 5003 that blows away the original. THAT, is encouragement to innovate!
Why should -any- restrictions last beyond the period of time that Nintendo is actively manufacturing and selling the system and/or games for it? What "incentive to create" would Nintendo lose if someone did make clones of an old, obsolete system that stopped making them money over a decade ago? TFA talked about "being aware of comprehensive protections" or some garbage like that-I'd say the more important advice is "learn when to let go." And since that's apparently not possible, the law needs to change.
You bring up some excellent points, although I think there might be people that still want the hand-holding experience initially, I just don't think it's necessary or desirable for many, and will be for even less, as net usage becomes more and more ubiquitous.
As to the ISP, you're dead on-I pay them to provide me a pipe and leave me alone. The only time I have to care that they exist is when that pipe ceases to work. Now, that doesn't happen often, and they're very responsive to problems, but by definition, when I'm talking to them, there's -already- something wrong.
I don't want "targeted content" from my ISP, I don't even use their mail accounts. Fortunately, I've got a good one-they've got all the standard crap in their AUP that you're not supposed to do, but they sure don't seem to actually care if you do it. (Not that I would, of course, do any of it. Just hypothetically. Really.) This is a Good Thing (TM), both for me and for them, because harassment from them over it would be just another (unpleasant) reminder of their existence. And for me, I require basically -no- support (other then when their hardware fails), they won't support Linux anyway, so you're rather on your own if you don't want to do the Microsoft or Apple bit. In that sense, I'm the best kind of customer-I send them their check and leave them alone.
Come to think of it, I'd sure love to see a discounted service offering like that-provider cuts the price in half, and in exchange, they support absolutely nothing except the hardware outside. Now that's sure something I'd look into, especially if it offered very high speeds and didn't (even technically) then forbid you from doing anything worthwhile with them. I'd sure also love to see some worthwhile upload speeds.
Creating web content is better performed by billions of people than by dozens. CmdrTaco edits an article, but people come here for the +5'd comments. CmdrTaco couldn't get many +5's on his own (maybe -1 Redundants).
By definition, the power of the net is that anyone can create content. Also by definition, a good part of that will be crap, but I've sure found a lot of gems too. Make it easier to sort the gems from the garbage, and I'll be very interested. Google's ranking system really does seem to do well at this, at least for sites that are already relatively popular, but I'd love to see more resources that gear toward more obscure content.
For the rest-Google's actually got the targeted advertising bit down. I've got adblock right here, and I block most everything. But I leave the google ads alone. I quite often find them relevant and useful, and take me to something I might actually be interested in purchasing, but at the same time, they're quiet and unobtrusive. They don't jangle in my face, visually distract from the content I'm trying to view, or (ABSOLUTE WORST SIN, and thank goodness for flashblock) make noise.
Different content? Absolutely. Maybe a "recommendation" system? I'm not sure how it would be implemented, but I think it could be. Although, of course, hyperlinks take us a good way there already.
Also correct on the TV show/songs/books-although I find it's actually easy with songs if you know a line, that line along with "lyrics" usually brings it right up. TV shows sometimes have a transcript posted, so a line for them can quite often hit as well. Obviously, publishers frown on having "transcripts" of their books posted, so that's a little harder...hell, they're even trying to stop Google from doing it in a way that would benefit them immensely.
*Compensate content creators somehow.
You mean they're going to start PAYING me to write those +5...oh...damn. Well, it was a nice thought. In all seriousness though, most who put "content" up don't need or want paid-certainly, no one's paying me to post here, it's just something to do. I enjoy the opportunity to converse, debate, and read what others doing the same have to say, that's payment enough. As for those who do, I like the EFF's collective license model, but other ones exist too. Hopefully it'll come down to something a lot better then the current system of draconian copyright controls. I'm not holding my breath, but I am still holding out hope.
Slashdot Mirror
To: M. Amoron, owner, Jackass Publishing.
From: I. Cheatem, attorney-at-law.
Dear Sir,
Attached to my email, you will find a two-line file entitled "robots.txt". The 4-year-old who designed your website should copy it into your top-level web directory. This file is essentially an instruction to Google's web spider to direct people to your competitors rather then you.
My client Google believes in respecting these wishes. We have happily de-listed your site.
On a related note, I know some excellent bankruptcy attorneys in your country. In a couple months' time when you come to need one, I will be happy to make a recommendation.
(Up) Yours,
I. Cheatem, attorney-at-law.
Please post your full, real name, home, school/work, and cell phone numbers, unaltered email addresses, home and school/work address, job title, vehicle descriptions and license plate numbers, and a link to a recent photograph of yourself.
Or, admit that privacy has its benefits after all.
Recycling is normally thought of as a good thing, and I know what imitation is the highest form of, but really...
I guess we disagree on the fundamentals then, I don't believe at all that patent filings would drop "to zero". They would certainly fall quite a bit. This would be a good thing, as the ones still filed would be the ones the patent system is genuinely intended to protect, not the ones that misuse it.
Patent lawyers would also become much more diligent-the current advice to "file away, why not!" would become shoddy legal advice, and subject to malpractice claims. They would search much harder for prior art, as well as advising clients to stay well within the clear scope of clearly valid patents, rather then extending their reach as far as they might be able to get away with, or going only after smaller entities unable to put up a fight.
In the meantime, victims of unfair patents would have an excellent incentive to fight them, rather than roll over and pay, and attorneys would have an incentive to take a case against a clearly unfair patent (or use of one) from a smaller entity who normally would be bankrupted by the legal fees. Currently, if you fight a bad patent, even if you win, you lose-the court costs of doing so are prohibitive for anyone but the largest entities.
As to the "value in our economy"? Bad patents have -negative- value to the economy, by stifling innovation rather than encouraging it. It is very clear from the wording in the Constitution ("to promote Science and the useful Arts") that this was never the intent of the patent system. This system wouldn't punish the "innocent", the current system does that. This system would place the costs of questionable patents and overreaches squarely where it belongs-on those who file and abuse them, not on the genuine innovators who are their victims.
As to being "unable to predict how a court is going to rule"? Actually, if the patent is clearly valid, it can be pretty clearly predicted that a court will uphold it. If it is -genuinely- impossible to predict how the patent would shake out in court, then it is questionable, and either shouldn't be filed, or if it is, the person -doing- the filing should bear risk if it is indeed invalid!
This would also have the side effect of curtailing the rise of companies which produce nothing but red tape, so-called "patent holding companies". Such a venture would be immensely risky under that system, and again, this would be a good thing.
Well, I don't think they even read their own website.
From "Profiting from Patents":
Having a patent granted provides little assurance that the patent is valid. Patent examiners are time-pressured production line workers; quality control suffers sometimes. Patents are commonly invalidated during litigation. Patent Hawk has personally invalidated well over a dozen patents through prior art search.
From THESE SAME PEOPLE'S response to the editorial:
"Too many patents are issued for "innovations" that are obvious, vague or already in wide use." - On what authority or statistical basis? This ignorant assertion is hoary, with no basis other than anecdotal evidence of patents occasionally being found invalid.
"On what authority"? On their OWN authority! Patents cannot be both "commonly" and "occasionally" invalidated, depending which one's convenient for them at the time!
Despite you (sic) baseless theory backed by no recearch, (sic) there is real-world data out there showing that music prices are NOT ELASTIC ENOUGH to justify lowering prices.
"Backed by no research"? I challenge you to find me -any- study on price elasticity that does not back my claim-luxury items are the most price-elastic commodity. It's been researched exhaustively, and that is the overwhelming (and relatively unsurprising) conclusion.
Now, as to your claims that my ideas have been tried-those are baseless. They never have been tried. I'll take your word for it that some new-release CD has been released at $5 (I've never seen it, the only CD's I've seen at that price point are either used or old, obscure bands that 3 people might like), but as far as I've seen, CD's hover between $15 and $20, and have -never- deviated from that. And even if a bit of tinkering's been done, that shows nothing that a revolutionary change would not work-the two do not equate. My ideas have never -been- tried. Debate them if you'd like, but drop the pretense that they've been tried and failed, or put up some evidence that they have.
Far from wild price experimentation, the record labels were convicted of illegal price fixing. That is proven fact, public record. Now offer up something of substance, or don't be so quick to sling "baseless" around.
From TFA:
Besides, the near-automatic granting of injunctions can lead to the absurd result of a company being forced to pay royalties to license patents later found to be invalid.
Easy enough to solve-require the holder of any patent later found invalid, or who charges licensing fees for something later ruled not to come under the scope of the patent, to pay back triple such fees and/or court awards they won from the invalid patent or improper use of it. You'll see a lot more caution in patent filings, and a lot more willingness to back down on questionable or obviously invalid stretches.
Your second point is flat wrong, and your first is able to be solved. Let's address them:
Luxury items, such as entertainment, have the -most- elastic demand curves. When the price of gas went up, you didn't see a massive reduction in demand, because so many individuals and businesses are dependent on it. Raise the price of food, and you won't see demand go down significantly, lower it, and it won't go up by a huge amount. On the other hand, cut the price of a music download in half (or offer a flat-rate service), and you will see a huge increase in demand. Raise it, and you will see a large number of people walk away entirely, go to P2P, or simply cut back.
As to the costs of making and marketing an album, yes, they are currently high for massive labels. However, it is becoming cheaper and easier to make and refine music, as general-purpose PC's become able to do so, and that will likely continue. Also, a market served by flat-rate download services would find it far less necessary to have "big-name" bands created, promoted, and advertised, and a large number of "niche" bands, paid basically solely on "commission" based on their popularity, could fill the demand just as nicely without any marketing besides the Long Tail on the website. Given the Long Tail effect, even a single track sold/downloaded is profitable, at any price, and given the opportunity for anyone to make a bit of money at it, even "hobby" bands would be likely to put their stuff up.
Actually, you'd only be right if they were selling a scarce product. As they are not, it doesn't apply at all.
If you've got ten widgets to sell, and you paid $.10 per widget, plus $5.00 to market them, you must sell each one for at least $.61 in order to make a profit. On the other hand, if you have an unlimited number of widgets (or can make an unlimited number of copies of them), you make a profit whether you sell 10 at $.61, 61 at $.10, or 601 at $.01. This is exactly -why- allofmp3.com is able to turn a profit (and apparently bandwidth is affordable at these prices), and the labels would most certainly turn huge profits from the massive frenzy of downloading which would occur from a similar reduction in their own prices. Also, the lower their prices get, the less likely people will be to turn to free alternatives, or allofmp3.
The problem, however, is exactly as you've illustrated-a lot of MBA's who are clueless, and think that in the age of free-flowing, easily obtainable, easily copied information, that they are selling a widget. In reality, the information -itself- is nearly valueless, due to the fact that it is so easily copied. Artificially inflating its value might work for a little while, but in the end, legislation is an expensive thing to buy-both in terms of the monetary cost and the cost of consumer goodwill. No one likes to hear about a kid or a grandma getting sued, whether they were really doing what they're accused of or not. No one likes DRM, regardless of whether or not they're willing to put up with it.
What they should be looking to sell is a SERVICE. Real has realized this, and is making a good deal of money. Allofmp3 has realized this, and is making a ton of money. (And they're making it legally in their country-why is it that some of the people I see castigating allofmp3 are the same ones who defended Yahoo's actions in China as "just acting in accordance with local law"?) Sell an "all-you-can-eat" download service for, say, $10 a month, with help in finding what you might like based on previous choices, and you'll see millions of people sign up. 10 million sign up? Look at that, you just made $100 million-free money, aside from nominal bandwidth costs. And compared to producing, packaging, and shipping a physical product, bandwidth is extremely cheap, and download costs should reflect this.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't hold out a whole lot of hope that we'll see such a thing. Or more appropriately, that we'll see it from the current crop of information-as-widget companies. But dinosaurs die out, and currently, they actually seem to die off pretty quickly. Don't be one of them.
Yes, because in addition to the neat new lens, the package also includes a guy who'll come by and hold a gun to your head, forcing you to sharpen the image.
Wouldn't worry too much about that-in a lot of cases, different people will be calling them to account for different things. The AG of Texas is calling them to account for violations of Texas criminal law. That's his job, he's a prosecutor. Anyone personally impacted by this (or any business whose security was compromised, for instance) can also sue Sony individually, or if someone launches it, in a class-action suit. The Attorneys General of other states also might pick up on this action and decide they want a piece as well-and remember, attorneys general are elected officials! If you were personally infected by the rootkit, write to your state AG and file a formal complaint. If you weren't, I'd still advise sending them a general letter that you think this is a filthy practice and you expect to see them help send a very, very clear message to Sony that it is unacceptable.
They may have (actually likely have) also broken federal laws, but that's up to the AG of the United States to prosecute, and the federal government tends to be relatively pro-corporate. Might not be much that happens there.
As for Sony's copyright infringement (oh, the irony!) that would be up to the copyright holders of the GPL code in question to sue over. I sure hope they do, I hope Sony winds up bankrupt over this garbage. With many states having statutory damages (yep, same type as in copyright law, that the labels just love to scare consumers with) for hacking/computer trespass, the numbers just might get big enough to do it.
Oh, for there to be a +6 funny mod for those rare ones. I'm just very glad I wasn't drinking any coffee when I read that!
That's an interesting take on that...in the end, isn't "ownership" of property (at least, beyond "I'm bigger and meaner then you and will attack you if you try and take it away") a function of the government as well? What good will "owning" property really do you, if anyone who takes it away won't be arrested and thrown in jail?
This wasn't a "slip up"-a bug in software is a slip up. This was a deliberate, calculated effort by Sony to secretly take malicious action against their legitimate customers. In the name of -preventing- "piracy"? How many users will now take the downloading option next time, rather then risking inserting a CD with -any- form of "DRM" into their drive?
I'm not a spelling nazi...but c'mon, when you're complaining about a misspelling in a newspaper article, you got to run the spellchecker yoursellf.
When they did not heed my warning shots, I usually got them taken down on academic charges (its a bitch when you get kicked out of school for sharing the latest Britney Spear's album).
I imagine you're trolling, because 1: Anyone who works around a university would hopefully know how to spell "copyrighted", and 2: If anyone had gotten kicked out of school for P2P usage, I imagine it might've made bigger news. Still, presuming you're not-that's not a "bitch", it would be wrong on your part to be making excessive trouble over it and wrong on the school's part for letting you.
Now, which university was this you work(ed) for, and who got kicked out? There must be linkable information somewhere, let's have it.
France will already be contributing enough steam once they put out all those fires...
Burglar tools? Wouldn't that be "possession of a torture device"?
Just out of curiosity...what might one have to be smoking in order to moderate this "offtopic"? I really am curious. If you're the moderator who did this, please do post, even anonymously if you insist on leaving the moderation in place, and let us know what in the fuck you were thinking.
Now, on the other hand, THIS post is offtopic. Feel free to nail it, I got karma, watch me not care.
Nah, just put him riiiiiiight in front of Alderaan...
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 19 seconds since you hit 'reply'.
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or are typing with both hands. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
Well, it -seems- like splitting hairs, but "IP" (meaning "intellectual property") is a misuse of language. Even the Constitution, which establishes copyrights and patents, makes clear that they're not property, they're government restrictions. If we look at them as totally separate from real property, we can easily see the difference-land is naturally scarce, ideas are not. Property rights are necessitated by land's natural scarcity, but copyright and patent are an attempt to impose artificial scarcity where no natural scarcity exists, so that an -approximation- of property rights can be imposed upon the approximation of scarcity! There's no equating the two.
Besides that, the term "IP" lumps together many disparate concepts. Copyrights are not like trademarks, and neither one is like patents. To preserve clarity, each should be discussed individually, and called its proper name. When details are important, it's not "splitting hairs" to bring them up.
And I'm sure it would very nicely protect Ford's "upgrade revenue stream" if only they were allowed to make parts for their cars, and they stopped doing so after a few years. That doesn't mean we should implement that situation and allow them to do so. So why should we do it for Nintendo? If they want to protect "upgrade revenue", let 'em come out with a product that's worth upgrading to, and a Zelda 5003 that blows away the original. THAT, is encouragement to innovate!
Why should -any- restrictions last beyond the period of time that Nintendo is actively manufacturing and selling the system and/or games for it? What "incentive to create" would Nintendo lose if someone did make clones of an old, obsolete system that stopped making them money over a decade ago? TFA talked about "being aware of comprehensive protections" or some garbage like that-I'd say the more important advice is "learn when to let go." And since that's apparently not possible, the law needs to change.
You bring up some excellent points, although I think there might be people that still want the hand-holding experience initially, I just don't think it's necessary or desirable for many, and will be for even less, as net usage becomes more and more ubiquitous.
As to the ISP, you're dead on-I pay them to provide me a pipe and leave me alone. The only time I have to care that they exist is when that pipe ceases to work. Now, that doesn't happen often, and they're very responsive to problems, but by definition, when I'm talking to them, there's -already- something wrong.
I don't want "targeted content" from my ISP, I don't even use their mail accounts. Fortunately, I've got a good one-they've got all the standard crap in their AUP that you're not supposed to do, but they sure don't seem to actually care if you do it. (Not that I would, of course, do any of it. Just hypothetically. Really.) This is a Good Thing (TM), both for me and for them, because harassment from them over it would be just another (unpleasant) reminder of their existence. And for me, I require basically -no- support (other then when their hardware fails), they won't support Linux anyway, so you're rather on your own if you don't want to do the Microsoft or Apple bit. In that sense, I'm the best kind of customer-I send them their check and leave them alone.
Come to think of it, I'd sure love to see a discounted service offering like that-provider cuts the price in half, and in exchange, they support absolutely nothing except the hardware outside. Now that's sure something I'd look into, especially if it offered very high speeds and didn't (even technically) then forbid you from doing anything worthwhile with them. I'd sure also love to see some worthwhile upload speeds.
Creating web content is better performed by billions of people than by dozens. CmdrTaco edits an article, but people come here for the +5'd comments. CmdrTaco couldn't get many +5's on his own (maybe -1 Redundants).
By definition, the power of the net is that anyone can create content. Also by definition, a good part of that will be crap, but I've sure found a lot of gems too. Make it easier to sort the gems from the garbage, and I'll be very interested. Google's ranking system really does seem to do well at this, at least for sites that are already relatively popular, but I'd love to see more resources that gear toward more obscure content.
For the rest-Google's actually got the targeted advertising bit down. I've got adblock right here, and I block most everything. But I leave the google ads alone. I quite often find them relevant and useful, and take me to something I might actually be interested in purchasing, but at the same time, they're quiet and unobtrusive. They don't jangle in my face, visually distract from the content I'm trying to view, or (ABSOLUTE WORST SIN, and thank goodness for flashblock) make noise.
Different content? Absolutely. Maybe a "recommendation" system? I'm not sure how it would be implemented, but I think it could be. Although, of course, hyperlinks take us a good way there already.
Also correct on the TV show/songs/books-although I find it's actually easy with songs if you know a line, that line along with "lyrics" usually brings it right up. TV shows sometimes have a transcript posted, so a line for them can quite often hit as well. Obviously, publishers frown on having "transcripts" of their books posted, so that's a little harder...hell, they're even trying to stop Google from doing it in a way that would benefit them immensely.
*Compensate content creators somehow.
You mean they're going to start PAYING me to write those +5...oh...damn. Well, it was a nice thought. In all seriousness though, most who put "content" up don't need or want paid-certainly, no one's paying me to post here, it's just something to do. I enjoy the opportunity to converse, debate, and read what others doing the same have to say, that's payment enough. As for those who do, I like the EFF's collective license model, but other ones exist too. Hopefully it'll come down to something a lot better then the current system of draconian copyright controls. I'm not holding my breath, but I am still holding out hope.
Yeah, what were those "bottled water" idiots thinking?